Orchestrating (Bio-)Diversity: The Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity as an Attention-Seeking Bureaucracy

  • Helge Jörgens
  • Nina Kolleck
  • Barbara Saerbeck
  • Mareike Well
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)


Conceptualizing international public administrations (IPAs) as attention-seeking bureaucracies which aim to actively feed their policy-relevant information into multilateral decision-making process, the chapter proposes two pathways through which international treaty secretariats may seek to influence international negotiations: (a) secretariats may attempt to supply policy-relevant information to negotiators from the inside via their close cooperation with the chairs of multilateral negotiations; (b) they may attempt to build support for their preferred policy outputs by engaging with and communicatively connecting actors within the broader transnational policy network in order to exert pressure on negotiators from the outside. Taking the secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) as an example, these potential pathways of secretariat influence are illustrated and explored empirically. The findings contribute to a growing body of literature that studies the role of national and IPAs as agenda-setters, policy entrepreneurs, or policy brokers at the interface of public policy analysis and PA.


Policy Process Knowledge Broker Multilateral Negotiation Heuristic Framework Policy Broker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by the German Research Foundation under Grants JO 1142/1-1 and KO 4997/1-1, FOR # 1745.


  1. Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.) (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without International Government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1985). The economics of agency. In J. W. Pratt & R. J. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business (pp. 37–53). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, M. W., Conceição-Heldt, E.d., & Ege, J. (2015). Autonomiekonzeptionen internationaler Organisationen im Vergleich. In E.d. Conceição-Heldt, A. Liese, & M. Koch (Eds.), Internationale Organisationen. Autonomie, Politisierung, interorganisationale Beziehungen und Wandel. Politische Jahresschrift Sonderheft 49 (pp. 28–53). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, M.W., & Ege, J. (2016). Bureaucratic autonomy of International Organizations’ Secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1019–1037.Google Scholar
  7. Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (Eds.) (2009). Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, D. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Depledge, J. (2007). A special relationship: Chairpersons and the secretariat in the climate change negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 7(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez, R. M., & Gould, R. V. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the National Health Policy Domain. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2011). The public administration theory primer. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gehring, T. (2012). International environmental regimes as decision machines. In P. Dauvergne (Ed.), Handbook of global environmental politics (pp. 51–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, D., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (Eds.) (2006a). Delegation and agency in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hawkins, D., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2006b). Delegation under Anarchy: States, international organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory. In D. Hawkins, D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international relations (pp. 3–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jänicke, M., Schreurs, M., & Töpfer, K. (2015). The potential of multi-level global climate governance. IASS Policy Brief 2/2015, 2015, Potsdam.Google Scholar
  17. Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty politics: Secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jörgens, H. (2016). International treaty secretariats as attention-seeking bureaucracies: Cornerstones of a theoretical frame-work. Manuscript. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Kolleck, N. (2012). How Corporations wield their power: The discursive shaping of sustainable development. In J. Mikler (Ed.), The handbook of global companies (pp. 134–152). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Kolleck, N. (2014). Innovations through networks: Understanding the role of social relations for educational innovations. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(S5), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolleck, N. (2015). Uncovering Influence through Social Network Analysis: The role of schools in education for sustainable development. Journal of Education Policy, 31, 308–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks, G. (1993). Structural Policy and multi-level governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The state of the European Community, The Maastricht debates and beyond (Vol. Vol. 2, pp. 391–410). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  23. Mathiason, J. (2007). Invisible governance: International secretariats in global politics. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  25. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.Google Scholar
  26. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009a). Das Experteninterview—konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage1. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, & D. Jahn (Eds.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen (pp. 465–479). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009b). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 17–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ness, G. D., & Brechin, S. R. (1988). Bridging the gap: International organizations as organizations. International Organization, 42(2), 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinalda, B., & Verbeek, B. (Eds.) (1998). Autonomous policy making by international organizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Schattschneider, E. (1960). The Semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Schreurs, M. A., & Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siebenhüner, B. (2009). The biodiversity Secretariat: Lean Shark in troubled waters. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies (pp. 265–291). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tallberg, J. (2010). The power of the chair: Formal leadership in international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson, W. (1987). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Workman, S. (2015). The dynamics of bureaucracy in the US Government: How congress and federal agencies process information and solve problems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helge Jörgens
    • 1
  • Nina Kolleck
    • 2
  • Barbara Saerbeck
    • 1
  • Mareike Well
    • 2
  1. 1.Otto-Suhr-Institute of Political ScienceFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Education and PsychologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations